Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mithu Singh vs State Of Haryana on 1 April, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043779
206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-3135-2014
Date of Decision: April 01, 2025
Mithu Singh ...Pe//oner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Tehermehakdeep Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Navjot Singh, Legal Aid Counsel for the pe$$oner.
Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.(Oral)
Pe$$oner - Mithu Singh was tried by learned Addl. Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Jind vide judgment dated 10.10.2012 under Sec$ons
283 and 304-A IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No.70 of 08.02.2009,
registered at Police Sta$on Sadar Jind and was convicted and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year with fine of `1,000/-
with default sentence of 01 month rigorous imprisonment in case of non-
payment of fine under Sec$on 304-A IPC and was further sentenced to pay
fine of `200/- with default sentence of 01 week rigorous imprisonment in
case of non-payment of fine under Sec$on 283 IPC. The appeal against the
convic$on and sentence was dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge,
Jind, vide his judgment dated 23.08.2014.
2. Against the aforesaid convic$on and sentence, present revision
was filed.
3. Today learned counsel for the pe$$oner stated at the outset
that pe$$oner does not press this pe$$on against the judgment of
convic$on; and that pe$$oner confines his prayer only against the order of
sentence. It is submi:ed that the pe$$oner would be sa$sfied, in case he is
sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him.
4. Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year
2009; that pe$$oner was young boy of 24 years at that $me; that he has
already undergone actual sentence of 07 months and 29 days and is not
involved in any other case and so, they deserve to be sentenced for the
period already undergone by him.
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043779
CRR-3135-2014 (O&M) -2- 2025:PHHC:043779
5. Learned State counsel has not seriously objected to the
aforesaid prayer.
6. The custody cer$ficate placed on record by the respondent-
State would reveal that pe$$oner has already undergone actual custody
sentence of 07 months and 29 days. It is revealed further that he has no
criminal antecedents. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that
a>er this convic$on, pe$$oner has been involved in any other case. He was
young boy of 24 years of age at the $me of offence, which had taken place
way back in 2009 i.e. 16 years back.
7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it will be in the
interest of jus$ce, if the period of imprisonment is reduced to the period
already undergone by the pe$$oner, instead of sending him behind bars in
the company of hardened criminals.
8. Consequently, the present pe$$on is partly accepted. By
maintaining the impugned judgment against convic$on, the order of
sentence as passed by the Courts below is modified and the pe$$oner is
sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by them.
Disposed of.
April 01, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA)
sarita JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
2 of 2
